I don't agree with the ad-hominem comments on Sam Smith, India Willoughby et al.

Dress like an arsehole, get talked about like an arsehole. Snowflake generation

Or even Kenny Everitt as Rod Stewart

https://twitter.com/EUSpotter/status/1624542505789169665?s=20

That outfit must have been inspired by Billy Connolly's incontinence pants.

https://twitter.com/TSting18/status/1624509990613446664?lang=en-GB

Someone on twitter agrees with me!

In the original definition of the phrase as suggested by John Locke (in his Treatise), an argumentum ad hominem seeks "... to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions."

I do understand this is perhaps not what OP means by "ad hominem" - the sense has been mangled over the years - but it does seem particularly apt regarding the two men OP mentions.

... Perhaps a reminder may be also useful: a Lockean argument ad hominem is perfectly respectable, not at all fallacious or even unkind (unless pointing out someone's inconsistencies is held to be so).

If the cap fits ...?

(Didn't see the deleted post, haven't been back to this thread since this afternoon).

Ah that explains your rather muddled-seeming posts QH - you seem to think I'm the OP - some of the things you were addressing to me weren't at all about things I'd actually posted!

A few people can vouch I've been on here for years and generally only name change to related usernames. And I was making different points from the OP (and wouldn't use a 'z' in the word criticising) (and generally bring up IW's racism when referring to IW) (and I don't know anything about SS's latest magazine cover) (and I don't call myself a TERF, as I don't know or care who identifies as trans, but care about feminism not centering males).

But if you're just here to put your Law and Classics degree to use trollhunting rather than engage, I'm happy to just scroll on by. I was getting Poe's Law vibes anyway.

Hmm why was my message deleted? Terf Cat/AmuseBish....isn't a woman and not a terf.

I didn't get a message saying my comment was out of order. I did not misgender SS, I called him 'him', since he's a man.

You can refer to Sam as he as that is correct. "They" is factually incorrect and gramatically incorrect.

You say that you have been warned for misgendering. Well Britney, oops you did it again "laughing at Sam Smith for his latest magazine cover." His? I think you should probably report yourself to MNHQ.

I agree that people can dress however they like, but frankly, that doesn't mean other people can't have a laugh or joke about them if they think they are idiotic or unpleasant individuals. Willoughby is a particularly unpleasant and racist individual who talks nonsense (all that stuff about having a cervix). Smith is a mediocre popstar who says some silly things and takes himself a little too seriously - 'fiisherthem' being a classic example (surely it would be fisherperson at the very least). We should be able to have a giggle at that.

No - there is a large group of TWAW types who argue exactly the opposite - that your gender identity is a feeling and you don't need to express it outwardly in any way. Any 'typical man' you see might in fact be a woman inside and there is no need to wear any type of clothes or change appearance to communicate this.

That would be the solipsistic claim to womanhood. It’s just about how I feel. Nothing else.

I agree that it’s all wrong and that sex I’d just biological sex whatever you feel or how you dress.

Again we are being told "you mean women, stop being mean!" Even very specifically GC women. This is just SO weary-making. SS is free to dress as he wants. And the public can comment as they please.

Or are we aiming for a world where SS dresses this way and nobody comments. Or some comment, but only gushing praise (for surely you should keep quiet if you have nothing nice to say). What, exactly, is the plan OP? Is a bland purity of speech, carefully edited to weed out all offence or possible offence, your vision of sunlit uplands?

Even more sinister than "stop being mean you meanies" is "stop having an opinion". That's where this kind of purity leads us. SS was provoking a response with those outfits. He would cry into his pillow if it had not worked and we all chatted about something else.

Hmm, I've got a rugby top of dog hair on. No beer goggles, I may alter that tonight.

Shit!

<covers Cloak of Invisible Frumpiness with Cloak of Dog Hair and Beer-Goggles>

I think the correct phrase would be they are free. Anyway I'm fed up of everyone criticising Sam's Brits outfit. I read an article about the guy who made it. Sam is not the first person to wear something like that and their new album is really good.

AmuseBish:
Let's agree to disagree then.

No, I am right. I've a Law and Classics degree and know how ad hominem is used in an argument. And you are wrong
(Ladies, this is a classic male dodge to avoid admitting he is wrong, as he goes down the hierarchy to beta male. Worse if he loses to a woman)

You'd have a bloody field day "being witty and nasty" if you saw a picture of me, I'm sure.

I wish I had been louder, witty and nasty in my Lesbian group to the transwomen, the men, that invaded it and got my sisters to drive them out. Perhaps today there would be young Lesbians who hadn't cut off their breasts and ruined their health with male hormones.

We women need to be tough and strong and relentless in our mockery and efforts to save all the young girls and boys from this terrible medical experimentation!

Oh no! You've covered your frumpiness with your Cloak of Frumpiness! Wrong cloak @ArabellaScott

The same is true of IW. IW ‘product’ is themselves and the idea that men can become women. What IW wears to appear on TV is specifically chosen to portray that message. When people sell something on mainstream media then you are allowed to criticise it.

I think that is a good point @Shelefttheweb . Would you say the same about a female dressed the same (that this represents a statement of what women should look like)? Presumably not, because as you say, IW is there partly/mainly/solely because of IW's biological sex and the fact that they have broadcast their views very loudly.

I guess to what extent should/do we treat IW as a TR activist where everything they do is perceived making a statement (usually a rubbish one) about TW, or can a person be separated from that? With IW, appearance is SO MUCH of what they find important about being female it's quite hard. It doesn't help that IW is so terribly poor at articulating an actual argument that they have produced a sort of scattergun splattering of racism and misogyny around them.

I would feel uneasy as a feminist having my clothes/makeup be perceived as a statement about what women/feminists should be like, but is this countered by the fact I bang on about appearance not mattering all the time?! Does it make my position less credible if I wear makeup or heels? Should that matter?! I'm rambling but I do find this hard to navigate.

Not RTFT but SS and IW are selling products. For SS, costume, props and setting are about creating an image, brand, for his music. It is designed specifically to create a response; ideally to buy the product but otherwise to at least remember it. If you present something designed to invoke a response then you cannot complain when you get one.

The same is true of IW. IW ‘product’ is themselves and the idea that men can become women. What IW wears to appear on TV is specifically chosen to portray that message. When people sell something on mainstream media then you are allowed to criticise it.

I genuinely couldn't care less if someone on another platform is laughing at Sam Smith except that it gives him the publicity he's so desperate for, totally ignoring him would be better imo. I don't know why you're specifically singling out a group of women to chastise when everyone is doing it which makes me curious as to whether you've been on any other forums or is it just the mean mummies who have to be shamed for what goes on somewhere else?

As for Willoughby, I think that given the way they abuse women for not matching up to the bizarre way they expect us to look and behave, a reminder about themself is a very fair response.